Why couldn't something be there all the time, but perpetually changing? Like the weather, for example.

This is called forms, and forms aren't "real". If you slap a label on something it doesn't make it real. For example, a chair is just a bunch of wood, plastic, or metal, organized in a certain way. Furthermore, that wood is also a form in and of itself, as it is made of carbon. Likewise, everything is made of the 5 aggregates. The labels and stories you apply to forms doesn't make them real. A human being is made of water, earth, heat (fire), air, space, and consciousness, everything beyond that is fabricated.

Likewise, the Atman is a fabricated story that is not possible. Lastly, even forms are impermanent.

This is only true if one believes that everything arises in dependence upon conditions. Apparently Nibbana doesn't, being unconditioned.

Yes because something that does not exist cannot have conditions. If something ceases to exist without remainder (aka not just forms), then there will be conditions up until the point where there are no more conditions.

There is no "beneath" the senses. If there are no senses, there is no perception, if there is no perception, there nothing to cognize.

Does the same apply to Nibbana?

It applies to everything. There is no magical voodoo in the universe that super-secedes the laws of physics and nature.

Nibbana means there is no birth in the first place, no conditions in the first place, so there is nothing to be sensed in the first place. There are only conditions leading up to non-existence, but afterwards there are none.

Also being aware of something doesn't prove it doesn't exist

And? That doesn't negate the fact that all proof must have a sensory representation, even though it's not available directly to a human, like say far-infrared light or ultra-violet light. All evidence must be sensual or perceptible, otherwise there is no evidence to refer to.

Unless you're misusing the term "prove", there's a difference between proving something as true (thus requiring consistent and reproducible evidence) and postulating something as true (showing something is true through logic and reason).

Why couldn't something be there all the time, but perpetually changing? Like the weather, for example.

This is called forms, and forms aren't "real". If you slap a label on something it doesn't make it real. For example, a chair is just a bunch of wood, plastic, or metal, organized in a certain way. Furthermore, that wood is also a form in and of itself, as it is made of carbon. Likewise, everything is made of the 5 aggregates. The labels and stories you apply to forms doesn't make them real. A human being is made of water, earth, heat (fire), air, space, and consciousness, everything beyond that is fabricated.

This doesn't address my question. We were discussing whether something that continually changes is necessarily impermanent.

Yes because something that does not exist cannot have conditions. If something ceases to exist without remainder (aka not just forms), then there will be conditions up until the point where there are no more conditions.

Nibbana is unconditioned, so are you saying that Nibbana doesn't exist? Unconditioned means "not subject to conditions", not "non-existent".

Why couldn't something be there all the time, but perpetually changing? Like the weather, for example.

This is called forms, and forms aren't "real". If you slap a label on something it doesn't make it real. For example, a chair is just a bunch of wood, plastic, or metal, organized in a certain way. Furthermore, that wood is also a form in and of itself, as it is made of carbon. Likewise, everything is made of the 5 aggregates. The labels and stories you apply to forms doesn't make them real. A human being is made of water, earth, heat (fire), air, space, and consciousness, everything beyond that is fabricated.

This doesn't address my question.

It does address your question. "Weather" does not exist, "weather" is a form. You cannot live in "weather". Weather is simply a process of heat, air, earth, water and movement. Just because you capture a moment of reality and label it, doesn't make it permanent or real. If I pause a video and give that frame a name, I can't say this frame is "permanent" or real because I paused it, that's delusional.

Yes because something that does not exist cannot have conditions. If something ceases to exist without remainder (aka not just forms), then there will be conditions up until the point where there are no more conditions.

Nibbana is unconditioned, so are you saying that Nibbana doesn't exist?

Nibbana is also a label used to describe a state where there is:

- No rebirth
- No feelings/sensation
- No forms
- No perception
- No fabrications
- No consciousness

To me, those things sound a lot like "existence", since if you cannot sense anything, you cannot perceive anything, you cannot cognize anything, and thus you cannot be conscious of anything.

- No rebirth
- No feelings/sensation
- No forms
- No perception
- No fabrications
- No consciousness

To me, those things sound a lot like "existence", since if you cannot sense anything, you cannot perceive anything, you cannot cognize anything, and thus you cannot be conscious of anything.

So are you equating Nibbana with non-existence? And if so, what would that look like, practically speaking? You mean an Arahant wouldn't be conscious of anything, for example? How would he cross the road, then?

As I noted earlier in the thread, the Khandha Sutta does make a distinction between "plain" aggregates and clinging aggregates, implying that the Arahant is composed of "non-clinging" aggregates.

- No rebirth
- No feelings/sensation
- No forms
- No perception
- No fabrications
- No consciousness

To me, those things sound a lot like "existence", since if you cannot sense anything, you cannot perceive anything, you cannot cognize anything, and thus you cannot be conscious of anything.

So are you equating Nibbana with non-existence? And if so, what would that look like, practically speaking? You mean an Arahant wouldn't be conscious of anything, for example? How would he cross the road, then?

As I noted earlier in the thread, the Khandha Sutta does make a distinction between "plain" aggregates and clinging aggregates, implying that the Arahant is composed of "non-clinging" aggregates.

When a person attains arahant they will die within 7 days unless they ordain. The reason being they no longer have intention to live, since the 5 aggregates are stressful. The sangha gives them something to do with the least amount of daily friction as they are around similar people with similar sensitivites to suffering and the 5 aggregates.

An arahant still has the 5 aggregates because they haven't reached parinibbana yet, the only thing that has changed is ignorance has been removed. The reason they are no longer clinging to the 5 aggregates is because when their bodies die their intention will not lead to rebirth.

If they were attached to the 5 aggregates, they would be attached to existence, and thus be reborned, and therefore would be ignorant because existence is stressful.

What i am trying to say is that a "changing self" is an oxymoron and it is where deception seem to happen even if we experience the world in that way.

I think we are muddling up two rather different things here. One is belief/disbelief in Atman, the other is "psychological" self view, the sense of a "me" having experiences. The latter doesn't have to be unchanging or permanent.

The belief/disbelief in Atman is a self view with psychological effects, so i am not muddling up the two, but questioning the significance of presenting them as two separate/different things apart from justifying a paradox.

And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

What i am trying to say is that a "changing self" is an oxymoron and it is where deception seem to happen even if we experience the world in that way.

I think we are muddling up two rather different things here. One is belief/disbelief in Atman, the other is "psychological" self view, the sense of a "me" having experiences. The latter doesn't have to be unchanging or permanent.

The belief/disbelief in Atman is a self view with psychological effects, so i am not muddling up the two, but questioning the significance of presenting them as two separate/different things apart from justifying a paradox.

There are many people who have self-view ( the sense of "me" ) but don't believe in Atman ( as eternal soul ), so clearly these are different things. My impression is that the suttas mostly deal with challenging self-view, eg not regarding the aggregates as "me" or "mine".

'Sense of self' is needed for progress. When you come self-aware, you need figure out how to 'become', that is to get a release without bridge and then sense bases will acquisition to new perception.

Sutta say that whatever is subject to change will progress, grow and decay.

Point is if self has risen there is no going back but becoming is imminent. Clinging aggregates are when self have arisen. To get sense of self arise is attainment, it isn't available when you look it or need it for progress.
Through clinging aggregates there is to be attained concentration what leads to aggregates won't have support, they are not subject to grow and decay.

idk use instead of sense of self soemthing else , but it is self view(nutriment, clinging) link, the permutation when that state is on is discernible, it belongs to category, whilst the ordinary 'me' doesn't have category.
-
fermentations are removed by non-clinging, i guess this is achieved by concentration of aggregates have no footing.

There are many people who have self-view ( the sense of "me" ) but don't believe in Atman ( as eternal soul ), so clearly these are different things. My impression is that the suttas mostly deal with challenging self-view, eg not regarding the aggregates as "me" or "mine".

I agree. Nihilists seem to be a good example as they deny the existence of a self but they are not free from the sense of me. Do you think that impermanence, or change, also has the above two aspect of feeling and belief? For example, when we use the elevator, we experience acceleration but not movement even if we believe that the elevator is moving. Same thing can be said about the movement of the earth ...etc

Do you think an Arahant:

1- Believes in change but has no sense of it
2- Believes in change and has a sense of it
3- Does not believe in change and has no sense of it
4- Does not believe in change but has a sense of it

My guess is number 3 for the reasons i explained in previous posts. The Arahant knows the other three can exist as possibilities due to dependent origination. The mind and body will continue to change and sense different things, but the Arahant has no identification with them.

Do you agree with my answer, or do you have different explanation, and why?

And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

Do you mean the Arahant is somehow separate from mind and body, from the aggregates?

The sense of separateness is due to self view. When i look at how i function as an unenlightened being, i see that i perceive this mind and body as mine, and this very perception becomes the driver of my actions. This sense of ownership (which appears to transcend time) creates time by taking the form of a desire to become (or being reborn in a new state).

If am experiencing a pleasant feeling, and i perceive this pleasant feeling as mine, i want to maintain it or increase it (becoming).
If i am experiencing unpleasant feeling, and i perceive this unpleasant feeling as mine, i want to get rid of it or change it into a pleasant feeling (becoming).
If i am experiencing neither pleasant or unpleasant feeling, and i am perceiving it as mine, this usually turns into a feeling of boredom due to my past Kamma, so the mind creates a desire (unpleasant feeling) and seeks to satisfy it (pleasant feeling) which is the cycle of birth and death.

And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"